"I certainly respect the Constitution," Melton said, "but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution." [More]Frank Melton.
Another criminal Mayor Against Guns.
[Via Stephen S]
Friday, January 16, 2009
"Bigger than the Constitution"
Another criminal Mayor Against Guns.
[Via Stephen S]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I was already outraged about Melton's "issues that are much bigger than the Constitution" before I saw what the issue in question was: saggy pants.
it for the children ya know...rolls eyes
Melton has had his Federal civil rights violation trial postponed three times now. He is due back in Court early February, unless he fakes a heart attack again. He's looking at 25 years in Camp Fed.
This coupled with the recent USSC decision eliminating the 4th amendment proves to all and sundry that the republic DEAD, irretrivably LOST. Saggy pants are bigger than the Constitution? WTF?!
1. The City Council refused to pass the law, as it was percived to be unconstitutional and thus a waste of time. Bravo for them.
2. Mayor Frank Melton promised to proclaim an executive order making it unlawful. Law by imperial decree?
3. "Melton said his executive order will not call on offenders to be put in jail. Instead, he said he envisions police officers taking young men with sagging pants home to their parents to talk about the problem." When you are stopped by police, and are not free to go, you are under arrest. There is nothing ambiguouse about this.
4. Assistant Police Chief said "Whatever city ordinances are passed by the council or mayor, we will do our best to enforce them." Someone read that man the Nuremburg decision.
5. The mayor has end-stage cardiomypathy, which "prevents the heart from properly pumping blood". Which means that the mayor's brain may not be sufficiently perfused with oxygen. Given this, would you trust anything that this man utters, never mind trust in his powers of judgement? Steps for removal (even if temporary) from decision making authority should have already been implemented.
6. I am confused. Is the threat to children the sight of the waistband of young men's (and not older men's or women's) underwear or a portion of the buttocks?
7. Should old pot-bellied men wearing their pant low be worried?
8. Should we all now wear our pants in the style of Steve Erkel?
bullshit, I have congestive heart failure with end stage cardiomyopathy and I know better than that.
the sonofabitch is just evil.
http://waronsaggypants.blogspot.com
I wonder what message people with their behinds showing in public are trying to express.
Kiss my a--?
Yeah, I'm a low-functioning gangsta or wannabe?
F--- you?
Making it illegal... well, that'll stop it and get those pot-smoking, heroin-shooting, convenience-store-robbing young men to respect authority, won't
it?
Personally, when I see one coming, cigarette or phone in one hand, struggling to keep his pants from falling all the way off with the other, taking short choppy steps because his belt is around his thighs, I see less of a threat.
As for Melton: If it's bigger than the Constitution, it's too big for YOU to play with, little man.
Post a Comment